A New Model for National Refugee Integration Services in England

A response from  NIACE
Published: December 2006

1. The National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals in the consultation paper ‘A New Model for National Refugee Integration Services in England’.

2. NIACE works to encourage more and different adults to engage in learning of all kinds. Its functions include research, development and consultancy; advocacy to inform and influence public policy; information services and dissemination; campaigning for, and celebrating the achievements of, adult learners. Established in 1921, NIACE is an independent non-governmental organisation, a registered charity (No. 1002775) and company limited by guarantee (No. 2603322). Its corporate and individual members come from all sectors concerned with adult learning: colleges; local authorities; universities; voluntary and community organisations; churches; broadcasters and unions.

3. Through its work on ESF Equal funded projects, Asset UK and Progress GB, NIACE has been involved in developing appropriate models for integration support for asylum seekers, refugees and other migrants in particular in relation to education, training and employment and consequent successful labour market integration.

4. NIACE recently published the final report of an independent Committee of Inquiry on English for Speakers of Other Languages chaired by Derek Grover CB. The report (More than a Language) stresses the key role played by language in integration.

5. The Government’s recognition of education as a positive force in developing active citizenship, promoting cultural diversity and combating social exclusion, is evidenced in the recent White Paper. The recently published Leitch report ‘Prosperity for all in the global economy – world class skills’ stresses the links between skills, productivity and employment. The acquisition of skills and their recognition and transfer all contribute to successful integration.

6. We welcome some of the proposals made by the Home Office in the current consultation paper. In particular, we are pleased to see: the intention for same level of integration support to be made available to all refugees across England; rationalisation of the funding streams; and that Refugee Community Organisations will be playing a full part in the integration of refugees. We particularly support the proposal that employment advice and support is one of the four key support strands and that refugee professionals such as engineers, teachers, accountants and health professionals require specialist support and resources to meet complex and costly professional registration requirements in the UK.

7. A number of the proposals, however, do give us cause for concern.

8. (Paragraph 1) We are concerned to learn that the Purposeful Activity for Asylum Seekers funding stream will be redirected to fund refugee integration. Together with the LSC’s recently announced cuts in the funding of ESOL and other learning for adult asylum seekers, this would lead to asylum seekers being excluded from any purposeful activities, thus impacting on their ability to pursue their asylum claims and their general well-being. This also impacts on community cohesion and on refugees’ ability to integrate quickly when they receive a positive decision. Although we understand that the negative impact of restricted access to purposeful activities is limited if asylum decisions are reached within short period of time, the legacy cases backlog is reported to be going to take five years to clear.

9. (Paragraphs 5/13) While the proposal for ‘an employment service to provide advice and support to refugees, particularly those with professional qualifications, in entering the UK employment market’ is an excellent approach, we are concerned that there is a risk that many refugees who do not have professional qualifications would not benefit from similar support. This is particularly likely to affect young people who have left their countries of origin before they were able to obtain professional qualifications or skills as well as women refugees who may have not had opportunities to gain skills or qualifications in their countries of origin. We would like to propose that employment advice and support is available through the mainstream agencies and others to all refugees of working age regardless of level of education and skills. This would mean that all refugees will have an equal chance for economic integration but also that the labour market as a whole will benefit from refugees contributing their skills at all levels.

10. (Paragraphs 5/8) Although the model aims to achieve consistency in the provision of integration support, employment support is dependent on the education and training opportunities at both basic (ESOL courses) and specialist (e.g. PLAB courses for doctors) levels being available to refugees in all localities or within a reasonable distance. This is not currently the case and if the aspiration is to be achieved it will have resource implications.

11. We recommend that a model based on the skills audit approach to employment support, developed by the NIACE ASSET UK project, should be adopted more widely. As well as providing in depth support, routes to skill transfer, further learning, work experience and jobs, this information could lead to a database of all refugee skills, not just professionals, that could be used to inform employers of the contribution that refugees can make to meet their labour needs. Although this approach may appear labour intensive in terms of adviser support time, the current Progress GB project has demonstrated its effectiveness in supporting refugees into jobs.

12. While we welcome the intention to provide ‘intensive caseworker support’ within ‘3 days of IND referral’ for support and that assessment of skills will inform individual PIP – Personal Integration Plan, we are concerned that the time allowed may not be sufficient for some refugees, especially since their access to integration opportunities during the asylum process will have been reduced. We note that only 20 hours are allowed for the whole process of needs and skills assessments; and believe that this is not sufficient.

13. A degree of cooperation and partnership between ‘Sunrise’ and the employment support measure proposed will be necessary in the initial stages of the needs/skills assessment but also throughout the process to ensure that there is holistic approach to integration support without duplication.

14. (Paragraph 5) Mentoring offers a potential to support integration but the purpose of mentoring and the role of the mentor, and its limits, should be very clear. There should also be a clear link between Sunrise, mentoring and access to employment. A model of in-work mentoring within workplaces and work experience placements has been developed by one of the partners in the NIACE-led Progress GB Equal project and has proved valuable. However, mentoring, while worthy of inclusion, can achieve only a limited level of integration.

15. We are concerned by the entirely individual approach taken in these proposals; for example, little or no mention is made of children or families (either present or absent). An individual’s needs should always be taken in their entire context and support should be holistic. For effective integration to take place it is recommended that the support is needs led taking into account people’s pre exile experience, their health and family situation.

16. Refugee Community Organisations are well placed, and many already have the capacity, to deliver much of the work needed. However, they are under-resourced financially and this strategy does not currently address this issue. Often these organisations have been seen partly as the clients of the integration process whereas they should be seen as partners. We are concerned that the re-alignment of the funds may further reduce the funding available.

17. While recognising that learning is not a responsibility of the Home Office, education is an essential element of both the economic and social integration processes. Therefore joined up working with other Departments such as DfES and DWP is critical to the success of this strategy if it is to deliver refugee integration.

18. In regard to the location of delivery and co-ordination, we think that most services would be best organised regionally, with the option of local delivery as appropriate. Refugees should not be required to travel long distances to gain access to services. In particular we believe that the direct employment support service would be best provided locally possibly through Jobcentre Plus, while strategic organisation for this should be regional. However, services for most professional groups could be best provided nationally, with linkage, through referral, from local advisers.

19. NIACE would be pleased to provide further information about anything in this note. Please contact Sue Waddington, tel: 0116 2044 290 or e-mail: Susan.Waddington@niace.org.uk .

Top of page